Timeshifter (talk | contribs) |
Timeshifter (talk | contribs) moved to archive |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
== How's it going? == |
|||
Hey, |
|||
How's it going? Hope everything is fine. If you ever need anything just [[User talk:Bless sins|holler]].[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] 23:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:3RR|3RR]] on [[Second Intifada]] == |
|||
You have been blocked for 24-hours for violations of the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]] on [[Second Intifada]]. The reverts taken into account in judging that a violation was committed are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=167114411&oldid=167063783 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=167118854&oldid=167117482 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=167121231&oldid=167119561 3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=167125426&oldid=167122806 4], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=prev&oldid=167158223 5]. I trust that you are familiar with the policy. If you need further clarification on why you have been blocked or to appeal the block, please contact me by [[Special:Emailuser/AmiDaniel|e-mail]] or write to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Please refrain from disruptive editing practices in the future. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 08:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I sent you an email. There were not 4 reversions. There were not even 3 reversions. One has to revert to something. I count only 2 reversions to the same thing. |
|||
:The last 2 diffs you listed on my user talk page were not removals of material. The material in red on the left side of the diffs was not removed. It was moved to a slightly different order in the infobox. |
|||
:This is the third time an admin has made this type of 3RR mistake with me. The first one I let slide. The second admin apologized. This is really getting tiring. |
|||
:Sincerely, |
|||
:Timeshifter. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 08:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Please see: [[WP:3RR]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]]. From the last link is this: |
|||
:"If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." |
|||
:As I said, I count 2 reverts at the most to the same thing. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 09:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I see no 3RR violation. Please see my user talk page for an explanation.|decline=You were edit warring, on five separate edits, over the same section/material. Additionally, [[WP:3RR]] is clear that 3RR is "an electric fence", or hard limit, and users may be blocked even before the fourth revert to prevent further disruption. Wikilawyering arguments over which edits count for how many reverts is exactly the wrong approach and attitude to take. — [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] 10:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
To clarify further. I did completely remove some material from the infobox as shown by the first 3 diffs (of the 5 diffs). So that means I reverted twice. |
|||
In the last 2 diffs the material was not removed. It was moved slightly within the infobox in order to fix an unintended POV problem (see article talk page), and for making the civilian casualties info the same on both sides of the infobox casualties section. Both changes were mentioned on the article talk page. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 09:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The person, Tewfik, who alleged this 3RR violation, is notorious in this topic area for reversions, mass reversions, blind reversions, tag-team reversions, etc., and has been mentioned several times by several people in various [[WP:ANI]] discussions. |
|||
He frequently does his reversions without talk page discussion. I, on the other hand, almost always try to discuss controversial edits on the talk page. Tewfik in his zeal to revert something he dislikes often also reverts intermediate edits totally unrelated to what he is really trying to revert. Because he does not want to spend the time to separate the material. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 09:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I see no 3RR violation. One admin called editing in one section of an article to be "edit warring" even if they were not reverts. Why bother editing wikipedia then? And I was doing most of the talking on the talk page. So the most cooperative editor talkwise gets the block, but the others editing in that section on the same day do not get blocked? Even though some of them talked little, and tag-team reverted a lot? I was actually accommodating their complaints. That is what the admin Vassyana called "edit warring." The unblock decline template says "This unblock request continues to be visible." It was not visible at Category:Requests for unblock after that decline template went up. So I put up the unblock template again so other admins actually COULD see the unblock request. I suggest changing the decline template. I might be able to help there since I have edited templates. I have around ten thousand edits combined on wikipedia and the commons, and have been editing on wikipedia longer than both of the blocking admins. I hope I deserve a little more respect than being summarily dismissed as an edit warrior without acknowledging that I didn't actually violate 3RR. I think I deserve a warning rather than a block if I haven't actually violated 3RR. Otherwise, any admin can arbitrarily block any editor for editing the same section of an article more than once on the same day. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 10:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |decline=Given the degree of [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] you exhibit against the blocking admin in this unblock discussion, I am not inclined to examine the 3RR issue on the merits. Such conduct, if continued, may lead to your block being extended. — [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 21:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
As the original block notice suggested I will send an email also to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org since I do not seem to be getting a fair hearing here. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 10:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Concerning this same [[Second Intifada]] article I see that Tewfik alleged 3RR a few days earlier at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]]. One admin noted: |
|||
"...I'd recommend joining the talk page discussion, which, while seemingly less than productive at present, is at least taking place between the two main reverters. The reporter '''[Tewfik],''' OTOH, '''seems to have contributed some of the reverts, and none of the discussion.''' I also note another user has offered to mediate, and I wish him well with that..." |
|||
That earlier 3RR allegation by Tewfik was denied by admins who bothered to abide by 3RR rules. I added the '''emphasis''', and "Tewfik" in brackets, to designate who the 3RR reporter was. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 11:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
So how come Tewfik wasn't blocked? As the admin Vassyana wrote, "users may be blocked even before the fourth revert to prevent further disruption." |
|||
And what about Armon? Just look at the edit history: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&action=history Revision history of Second Intifada]. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 11:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The [[Second Intifada]] article has a long history of controversy. This is common with articles about the [[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]], and it was true LONG before I started editing articles in that area. It is common to find admins with conscious or unconscious systemic bias concerning this topic. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective]] (which I am a member of). But this is the first time I can remember for this article that daily editing was called "edit warring" by an admin, and then someone blocked for daily editing of a section of the article. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 11:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
As I say on my user page, "Partisan admins can cause a lot of problems." I communicate with a Russian activist. They say that the Russian-language wikipedia is run by partisan admins, and that they come to English wikipedia articles to get the truth. Let us hope that partisan, arbitrary admins (with unconscious or unconscious systemic biases) do not overrun English wikipedia too. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 12:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
By the way, Tewfik just reverted the Second Intifada article AGAIN. HEELLLOOOOOO.... See this diff: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=167199512&oldid=167158223] Are there any admins willing to buck the herd and unblock me yet? |
|||
This (usually unconscious) herd-like systemic bias of many admins unknowingly favoring the far-right of Israeli politics (Tewfik) over common sense is why I am a founding member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine]], and also why I helped restart [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict]]. I am also a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel]]. I whole-heartedly support [[WP:NPOV]]. Something that a few admins need to read again, in order to learn more about common-sense fairness. Versus their current arbitrary power-mad, petty and selective enforcement of their admin powers. |
|||
By the way, I am admin at [[Wikia]] |
|||
Tewfik's tag-team mass reversions were one of the reasons I helped start the WikiProjects. It was difficult to get admins to pay any attention otherwise to the mass reversions of Tewfik and his tag-team buddies back in late 2006 and early 2007. '''I think I am going to try to get a tag-team 3RR policy started.''' |
|||
Anybody interested in helping start a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tag-Team 3RR]], just let me know. |
|||
Tewfik and Armon are currently tag-teaming on a couple articles. See: |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupation_101&action=history |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&action=history |
|||
Maybe some admins can block them by using those "special" interpretations of [[WP:3RR]] that some admins favor? --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 13:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] does not seem to be working well with [[Israeli-Palestinian Conflict]] topics and articles. It seems to have come down to a numbers game. Editors, like me, who favor a [[WP:NPOV]] treatment of the topics seem to be in the minority. Tag-teams seem to have control anytime they choose to game the system. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I recognize that these were not explicit reverts; however, it seems clear to me that the intent of all five edits provided above, along with a sixth not counted in the "tally" as it was not within 24hrs of the last, had the same intention, namely the suppression / obfuscation / removal of the casualty figures in the infobox. In either case, your editing practices on this article were clearly disruptive and not positively motivated toward resolving the conflict. Your comments here and in your e-mail to me solidify this impression. 3RR blocks are not about driving "the letter of the law," but rather about discouraging and preventing the continuation of ''disruption''. As your comments indicate that you will continue such behaviors following an unblock, I see no reason to grant your request, and it would seem others agree with this stance. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thank you for replying. But your smear of my editing '''intentions''' shows your obvious bias. After this block ends I will be reporting you to [[WP:ANI]] for violating '''[[WP:NPA]]''' and '''[[WP:CIVIL]],''' and I will request that you be de-sysoped. As I said earlier I am admin on Wikia, and admins are not above any other editor in any way, except access to more tools. You are using your tools badly. It is especially insulting to say that my intention is to suppress or remove casualty figures from anywhere. I am the main editor of the casualties section of the infobox at [[Iraq War]], and I am the main editor now for many months at [[Casualties of the Iraq War]]. My intention, as frequently stated on several talk pages, is to eliminate bias in casualty reporting on and off Wikipedia. Because it is a systemic bias in the Western media to minimize Arab, Moslem, Palestinian, and Iraqi casualties. Especially civilian casualties. The Western media minimizes the number of American wounded and injured, too. The suppression of the number of Palestinian civilian casualties in the infobox is the result of the edits of Tewfik and Armon, not me. I was the one trying to put that info in the infobox. You owe me an apology. By the way, I am American, and I am a pro-Palestinian supporter, and a left-wing pro-Israel supporter. I support a 2-state solution. I am not part of the anti-Semitic herd, nor of the Israel-can-do-no-wrong herd. There are many Israel-can-do-no-wrong admins on wikipedia. As proven on many talk pages, and by several rulings of the ArbCom committee. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::There is a good faith content dispute here. Check sections 8-17 on [[Talk:Second Intifada]]. Accusations of edit-warring are one thing, accusations of suppression/obfuscation/removal are another entirely, and they appear to be a serious misreading of the situation to say the very least! <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font>]]</b>></tt> 18:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I apologize -- my wording was clearly ill-chosen. My statement was simply to illustrate that the intent of the edits was to remove the disputed figures and, thereby, to further the edit war. That is, while the reverts where not plain "reverts" they had the same effect as a revert--restoring one version of the article. I quite truthfully have absolutely no opinion as to whether Timeshiter's version is the "correct" one or not, and apologize if I gave that impression. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Apology accepted. But you are now saying that the '''intent''' of my edits was to remove disputed figures, and restore one version of the article. I am still not convinced you have fully analyzed the diffs. There is no one version of the casualties section of the infobox that I have reverted to. There was an evolution of edits that evolved depending on previous edits, edit summaries, and talk page comments by several people. '''I can tell you the intent of my edits.''' My intent, as stated previously on this user talk page of mine, and on the article talk page, was to BALANCE the stats fairly, or failing that to remove most of the stats until further discussion. People on the talk page asked for both options at times as a means to further rational discussion. Tewfik and Armon refused both options, and insisted on putting the number of Israeli civilian casualties, and removing the number of Palestinian civilian casualties. Nearly everybody on the talk page now agrees with putting the number of non-combatant or civilian casualties for both sides in the infobox. Pleas to Armon and Tewfik to stop edit warring go unheeded, and Tewfik yet again reverted the stats to his ONE version. The version that Tewfik and Armon keep reverting to over several days is shown by Tewfik's last edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=167199512&oldid=167158223]. You will not find one version I keep going back to. Because I have bent over backwards trying various options. That is why your comments are so frustrating. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 02:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you, Eleland. Some admins feel they have the right to insult editors. AmiDaniel has obviously not bothered to read the talk page much, just like he obviously did not read the diffs well. I have taken several admins to [[WP:ANI]]. So I am not intimidated. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::AmiDaniel shows his <s>obvious</s> ["possible" is a better word choice] bias, not just with his insults, but by the fact that he doesn't use his "special" interpretation of [[WP:3RR]] to block Tewfik also. Tewfik continued to revert the article after I was blocked. Tewfik's last revert (see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=167199512&oldid=167158223 diff]) was to remove completely-new info from the infobox that I added in order to satisfy a justifiable complaint of Michael Safyan. I had added "at the time of their deaths". I discussed it on the talk page here: [[Talk:Second Intifada#B.27Tselem Figures]]. Tewfik did not discuss it at all. All Tewfik did was his usual blind reversion in order to remove the number of Palestinian civilian casualties, and to leave in only the number of Israeli civilian casualties. His edit summary was one of his usual incoherent ones: "rv WP:POINT-making". How is my adding of "at the time of their deaths" WP:POINT-making? Admins not willing to do dig in and do the work should not be admins. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 21:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not going to refute that the actions of Tewfik and Armon are not also disruptive, but 1) neither has violated 3RR and 2) a block would be unwarranted an would not result in a suspension of the dispute. While you may find this block unfair, you must admit that it did, at least temporarily, cool off the dispute. My hope was that it would allow you time to consider better methods of resolving the dispute, such that other forms of arbitration or protection of the article will not be necessary. Unfortunately, however, your statements here show no sign of contemplation or willingness to discuss the issues rationally with the other editors involved. If you believe my actions mistaken or unwarranted, then please, by all means, take it to whatever forums you feel necessary--more discussion typically results in better solutions to problems. I do, however, recommend that you refrain from your hostility when appealing to others, as it will not be and has not been well-received. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::My hostility is not to you but to your continued insults. You now write "your statements here show no sign of contemplation or willingness to discuss the issues rationally with the other editors involved." Have you read everything I have written here? I am the one doing most of the discussing on the talk page concerning the casualties section of the infobox. Several editors on the talk page have asked the tag team of Tewfik and Armon to stop edit warring, and to discuss things more. Read the talk page and see for yourself. Here is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASecond_Intifada&diff=167276286&oldid=167272041 diff] with more detail from G-Dett: |
|||
:::::<blockquote>The which-stats-are-most-pertinent-here question is a much more important one, but for the time being Armon has refused to discuss it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASecond_Intifada&diff=166255165&oldid=165660825 vowing instead to edit-war] on "original research" grounds (''"I'm done discussing it. I'll just remove it."''). The point of this RfC is to address and hopefully dismiss Armon's peculiar OR/SYN theory, so that we can return, without prejudice, to a serious discussion of which stats to include.</blockquote> |
|||
::::I have discussed the casualties section of the infobox rationally non-stop on the talk page. Most sections of the current talk page deal with casualties. I initiated much of the discussion. If you insist that editors grovel before admins before they get fair treatment under the wikipedia guidelines and policies, then you are out of line. I sent you a polite email, and I made some comments. The worst thing I said in a comment before the second admin dismissively declined my request to unblock was "This is really getting tiring." --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 02:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::As I said in the unblock reason higher up '''the new rule''' seems to be: |
|||
::'''"any admin can arbitrarily block any editor for editing the same section of an article more than once on the same day."''' --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::G-Dett has recently pointed out on the talk page that one of the tag-team editors, Armon, actually wrote that he was done talking, and was going to remove casualties info from the infobox. G-Dett wrote: |
|||
:::<blockquote>Armon has refused to discuss it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASecond_Intifada&diff=166255165&oldid=165660825 vowing instead to edit-war] on "original research" grounds (''"I'm done discussing it. I'll just remove it."'')."</blockquote> |
|||
::So the admin, AmiDaniel, has got it so wrong on so many points. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 21:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The admin Sandstein just declined to unblock, and left this statement: |
|||
::"Given the degree of [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] you exhibit against the blocking admin in this unblock discussion, I am not inclined to examine the 3RR issue on the merits. Such conduct, if continued, may lead to your block being extended." |
|||
::Show me where I have been uncivil and I will apologize. Or is there a new rule that says disagreeing with admins is uncivil? By the way, when you added your decline comment (see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATimeshifter&diff=167302928&oldid=167298431 diff], you delinked one of the wikilinks in my unblock request. The one to [[:Category:Requests for unblock]]. Do you mind explaining why? |
|||
::I just struck out one word that may have been uncivil. I apologize. All my generalizations about admins are just that... generalizations. It does not necessarily apply to the admins in question here, because I can't read minds. Just like AmiDaniel can't read my mind and intentions. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:08, 27 October 2007
no archives yet (create) |
To keep the discussion in one thread some comments added here are moved to the user talk page of the author. I reply there. I also watchlist that talk page for awhile in order to note when the user there replies. Harassing comments are also sometimes moved off this talk page. As are inappropriately-applied warning templates, etc.. Sometimes the original author is offended by their own harassing comments, and my reply, on their user talk page. They then remove both from their talk page. I guess the light from their own verbal reflection offends them. One can find removed comments by using the history link on a talk page. Users are allowed to remove anything from their talk pages. See WP:TALK and other wikipedia guidelines/policies.